Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With a new President comes new hopes. The hope that the President will make wise decisions in the face of amazing pressure. The hope the President does what’s best for the American people. And, in this case, the hope the President doesn’t nod off during a state dinner.

But the hopes don’t end with the President. Leftists are now hoping to do away with a tool the Senate has used for centuries, the filibuster. And they’re doing it in the only way they know how: using a hashtag, #EndtheFilibuster. Although Leftists have used the filibuster in the past (see Wendy Davis), they now think it’s outlived its usefulness.

As with most things, the Left hasn’t thought this out, as we’ll soon see.

#EndtheFilibuster

What the Left thinks it means – a movement to get rid of an antiquated process that prevents progress

What it really means – a movement to remove the voice of the minority in the Senate

Now, for a quick history/civics lesson before we get into the meat of the issue. Senate rules allow for members to delay or stop legislation from passing by getting up and speaking until the controversy is resolved. Usually, this is done by members of the minority party in the Senate to block legislation, but it can be used to make a statement. Namely, some politicians love the sound of their own voices. This bit of political theater is known as a filibuster, and it’s a mixed bag as far as effectiveness. These days, the threat of a filibuster is enough to get politicians to back down.

Now that Democrats control the Senate, they want to take that option away from Republicans due to allegations of the GOP abusing it. Whether they actually did is a matter of opinion, but it’s interesting to note the timing of this desire to do away with the filibuster. I mean, this isn’t something the Left has made a focal point last year when they were campaigning to taking back the Senate. As soon as they got the votes and won the two open seats they needed, the filibuster became Leftist Enemy Number 1. (Excluding Donald Trump, of course.)

Maybe it’s me, but I seem to remember the Left wanting to silence conservative voices for, oh, the past decade or so, and it makes me wonder if the removal of the filibuster is in line with that philosophy. But I’m sure no one could be that petty, right?

Sorry. I forgot we were dealing with Leftists here. They hold grudges like Atlas holds up the globe.

Regardless, this current move to eliminate the filibuster is a bad idea that assumes far too much and leaves it open for others to use it against the Left down the line. Say what you will about Mitch McConnell, but he has a working understanding of Senate rules and traditions that is unmatched by his Democrat/Leftist detractors. That makes it easier for him to get what he wants by letting his opponents do all the work for him. Just ask Harry Reid about how the “nuclear option” on judicial nominees worked out for him. (Spoiler Alert: it’s how Donald Trump got his Supreme Court nominees through so quickly.)

This same kind of short-sighted strategy is in play here. The Left loves to think once they get into power they won’t ever be unseated. Politics doesn’t work that way. For every swing in one direction there will be a swing in the other direction eventually. Assuming permanence without evidence and without considering the long-term effects if things go south is like buying a Ferrari assuming you’re going to hit a slot jackpot at Uncle Cheater’s Casino and Pawn Shop. It works great if your plans come to fruition, but it’s a nightmare if it doesn’t. And when it comes to politics, the Left has been playing a lot of slots while avoiding the calls from the Ferrari dealership about when they can expect payment.

On the other side of the coin, the Left can’t call for unity while silencing the Right. I mean, they’ll try, but they will have a hard time convincing the public they’re serious about it. Although most people don’t know about Parler or Gab, they know about fairness. If one party consistently tries to curtail the other’s ability to do business, voters and potential voters may start feeling sympathy towards the injured party, which can swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. With the next election cycle being the midterm elections in 2022 and with the historical tendency for voters to create a divided government, this spells trouble for the Left.

So, naturally, they want to keep pulling the slot machine lever and taking their chances.

Although ending the filibuster is a bad idea, I do think the practice needs to be modified by requiring a personal stake in the outcome. If you threaten a filibuster on a bill, get your comfy shoes on because you will be speaking upright for quite some time. If you threaten a filibuster and don’t follow through, you should be punished financially for it and deserve to be mocked mercilessly. Either way, the parties will either have to learn to work together to come up with bipartisan legislation or they get mocked and have to pay out of pocket for it. That’s a win-win in my book!

Although #EndtheFilibuster has all the sexiness of Ernest Borgnine in a burlap teddy, it’s gaining traction with Leftists who want to exercise absolute power in the Senate because…reasons. Yet, it’s such a monumentally bad idea that shows the Left hasn’t learned their lesson from the previous times in recent history they’ve tried to pull the same kind of power trip only to have it blow up in their faces within an election cycle or two.

At least they’re consistent with their insanity.

Advice and Consent

With the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg the U.S. Supreme Court is down a member. It is the President’s job to nominate a replacement Justice for the Supreme Court. And per the Constitution it is the Senate’s job to confirm or deny such appointments.

Throughout President Trump’s presidency the Senate has dragged its heels in the confirmations of his Administration. No other president in history has had such a delay in getting their nominees appointed or even getting Senate hearings for them. So the Senate certainly isn’t Pro-Trump otherwise this would not be the case.

During the previous administration, there was an opening on the Supreme Court and President Obama did his duty in nominating a replacement Justice. And the Senate did their duty as well.

They rightly refused to have a hearing for the confirmation of Merrick Garland who was nominated by President Obama. The Constitution clearly states that the President needs the Advice and Consent of the Senate to appoint Judges to the Supreme Court. The Senate did not give their Advice or Consent in President Obama’s nomination of Mr. Garland. Yet he didn’t have any issues getting his administration confirmed.

The Senate is under no obligation to give consent to any appointment. That is why there are many still open positions within the Administration of President Trump. The Senate hasn’t given their consent to his appointments. He will either have to withdraw the nominees and appoint someone else or wait to see if it gets filled.

So here we are coming up on a presidential election in November. And President Trump is still the President of the United States until at least January 20th of 2021. And I pray that he is President for the next four years as well.

No matter the outcome of the coming election. If President Trump submits a nomination to the Senate. The Senate has every right to either hold hearings and confirm the nomination or reject it.

The President or someone else?

There seems to be a lot of confusion when it comes to the job qualifications and description of the President of the United States. So let’s get this cleared up.

Our nation’s founders were brilliant men. And they wrote out the qualifications needed to be President and what the job description was. So we don’t need to guess or make it up as we go.

All of the details can be found in the Constitution. Anything else added or taken away is your own personal preferences. So your opinion is logged and noted. But irrelevant when it comes to the facts.

Article II, Section 1 is where it lists the qualifications to become President of the United States. You must win the election through the Electors, that is the Electoral College and take the oath of office.

But before you can win the election and take the oath of office you must also have these qualifications: One must be a Natural born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years of age, and lived within the United States for at least 14 years immediately prior to being elected.

That is it for qualifications to be President. No lengthy resume of public service. No skill in oratory. No tests of morality or divulging ones tax history.

As for the job description and duties of the President, again the Constitution clearly tells us that too. The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The President proposes bills to Congress, this is so his agenda can move forward. And since the President is the executive power, it is his job to enforce the laws.

Another part of the President’s job is to give a state of the union report from time to time to Congress.

Many of the duties of the President require the US Senate to consent. This is used for the enactment of any Treaty and the appointment of officers of the United States government.

That is it. That is the end of the job qualifications and the job description for the President of the United States. Anything else is opinion or tradition. These are the facts written in the Constitution.